Economic Models/Systems For Society Today/Tomorrow

[Ribs]

1 hour ago, Canuckle said:

@Bob Long

 

"Social programs are not socialism as a political governance structure. Is that where you're off the rails?"

 

Never said they were. In fact I would greatly oppose the claim "socialism is when the government does stuff."

 

I'm still asking you to define the term though. And yes, socialism is still around you.

 

"Who do you define as "working people"? E.g., what income or education level does that mean for you?"

 

Social stratification may be defined differently depending on who you subscribe to. For example Max Weber views it though a lense of class, status and power.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_stratification

 

But in Marxist terms it's about ones relationship to capital-- the property/ labour relationship.

 

In otherwords, those that have to sell their labor to another to survive, and those that don't.

 

Income levels, education levels don't matter so much as the fundamental relationship between property-- Exploited proletariat with nothing to sell but their labour is all the same regardless of the particular division of labour creating something for someone else to profit from.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_production

 

"You say you want to 'fight the state' but all you are arguing for is an inferior governance model."

 

Ah, I think you just answered my question from earlier. It appears you think I'm advocating state ownership of the means of production? And that is "socialism" ?

 

That is certainly not my position nor would I follow the red fascists of the USSR or the state capitalism of "Communist" China. That would be a gross misreading. I'm not a tankie dude.

 

I'm an anarchist.

 

See this is stuff we really need to unpack here. That murky history of socialism and what terms actually mean

 

"Again I challenge you, show me a simple example of a socialist government being successful."

 

Who ever said I was arguing against that?  "Socialist" and "government" are frankly oxymoronical terms when you get into it. But already thinking in terms of "state" and "government" control is already sending us astray.

 

"And if you can't, just admit it. If it's all still in the realm of theory, just say so."

 

Socialism is and always has been at the core THE WORKERS OWNING THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION.

 

Can you think of anywhere that exists?

If you think it's "just theory" you haven't really been paying attention.

 

These organizations exist all over the place- they are all around you. Where top down structure, and labour exploitation does not occur.

 

How people go about implementing and growing these organization on a larger scale is another question. And there are obviously differing ideas on how to do that.

 

Ah okay good to know . Thanks for reply. Appreciate it. : )

 

Also damn I didn't think I was replying all that fast to them all. Lol

 

Turns out the limit was 3 hours - it's now 5 minutes

[Canuckle]

2 hours ago, Satchmo said:

Ok here we go again (quickly 'cos I gotta go.)

 

Never said I was educated at some high level.  Educated certainly.   The comment I made was mostly due to pain from being constantly urged to read things.

 

Socialism on paper: Marx, Engels, Lenin.   I'm sure your list is much longer.   I have not read any of that stuff since the late seventies so that may be another thing you will question.   I think they all propose some good stuff.

 

Socialism in practice:  Well Russia.  Not in Cold War speak as that does not apply.  (Good chirp though).   Russia gave birth to socialism but with Bolsheviks as midwife.  it went down hill from the get go.   Stalin and his cronies made it worse.  Then came the cold war.

 

There are many other countries that could be discussed, but I gotta go.

 

If/when you respond, please explain this line:

There's a difference between educated and indoctrinated.

 

If you do have time, please also explain the differences between the phrases 'I think' and 'I feel' in conversational English.

 

"Socialism" as state ownership of the means of production as found in places like the USSR was never actually socialism.  Their economy was state capitalism.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism

 

Big big difference.

 

Socialism at the core has always been worker ownership of the means of production.

 

All that happened in the USSR was the state took over the workplaces and instead of working for a private owner they were working for the state. They decide what to do, what to make, etc. and what to do with the profits.  It was just as exploitative as the one they were trying to free themselves from.

 

Traded a guy with a monocle and top hat on top for a guy in a military uniform.

 

That was never the idea.

 

Lenin, Stalin meant it to be a transitional period to move to socialism, but they never actually got there. They just called it socialism and both the west and the USSR benefited from the lie. And it still lingers even today.

 

And I can assure you I am no fan of that kind of "socialism" that's for damn sure.

Edited October 11, 2023 by Canuckle

[Bob Long]

4 minutes ago, Canuckle said:

 

 

Lenin, Stalin meant it to be a transitional period to move to socialism, but they never actually got there. They just called it socialism and both the west and the USSR benefited from the lie. And it still lingers even today.

 

And I can assure you I am no fan of that kind of "socialism" that's for damn sure.

 

oh is that what Stalin meant when he starved and murdered millions of Ukrainians?  

[Canuckle]

1 hour ago, Bob Long said:

 

OK so I'm not ignoring your other points but I'd like to pick up on this one idea because this is where I can't square what you're saying. (as far as definitions of "socialism" there are many - thats part of the problem imo).

 

You talk about people owning the 'means of production'. Not sure thats actually possible anymore with globalization but lets say it is for the sake of argument. 

 

One of the best ways that can happen is worker-owned co-ops, an economic idea that I love. Works exceptionally well. But it can't work well in a vacuum, it needs an organized market to operate in. 

 

But how is that compatible with anarchist political philosophy? how does an anarchist advocate for worker co-op's thriving in a global market economy?

 

Yeah you got it. Workers co-ops operate in a capitalist marketplace NOW because what choice do they have, right?  But what does it mean when we say a "socialized marketplace" ? There are different ideas how that could be structured and organized even within anarchist philosophical circles. Ie. Market vs non-market forms

 

Eg. Mutualism v anarcho communism

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic_theory)

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism

 

And this is just the tip of the iceberg.

 

The thing with socialism is that it's not just an economic model-- it's an entirely different way of organizing society as whole.

 

At the core it's all about identifying and dismantling hierarchical power relationships in all their different forms. Economic structure happens to be a big one. But it's one of many.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism is where the good stuff is at if you really want to tumble down the rabbit hole.

Edited October 12, 2023 by Canuckle
words

[Canuckle]

22 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

oh is that what Stalin meant when he starved and murdered millions of Ukrainians?  

 

No shit. Fuck Stalin.

 

Anarchists hate his ass probably more than anyone.

[Ilunga]

7 hours ago, Canuckle said:

I've read both. One more than the other... (just due to the sheer size of the thing. Never again.)

 

A stateless, classless, moneyless society would obviously be preferably if equality and equity is the goal, but fun fact Marx wasn't the only one that wrote on this subject. In fact, conceptions of socialism predate Marx. Tons of stuff look into on that front. I'd personally lean on the anarcho-communist side in terms of philosophy and theory (eg. no transitional state-capitalism) but I'm with you.

 

There's never been a scientific basis for the belief in there being a "human nature." There is no true "human nature."

 

We are products of our environments, socialized, conditioned, born into bondage ala reinforced by the structures of society that exist. And if we change the conditions of the experiment, we get different results. Humans are capable of all sorts of behaviors. There is no 'genetic only human nature' forcing people to be selfish and dominating. For the most part it's scarcity driven behavior, and societies with structures that award those types of behaviors reinforce them. The notion of human nature was always putting the cart before the horse. And still is.

 

Frankly, if there was a "true" human nature it would probably be more akin to mutual aid and community-- Human civilization would not have survived as long as we have without it. We are social animals, afterall.

 

There's a book called "Mutual Aid: a factor of Evolution" by Evolutionary biologist and anthropologist Peter Kroptokin which I'd recommend. Good stuff in there.

 

 

And what would happen if we remove the systems and structures which allow for such domination to occur in the first place? It becomes a non factor.

 

For example, in that stateless, classless, moneyless society where each contributes according to their ability takes according to their need, what good is being "rich?" How would we even define rich in a society with no money? And what would be drivers be to hoard more than one needs anyway?  There would be none.

 

And even if there was there was a need to "have more," need for in those kinds of difference in personal property, there are other economic ideas out there which could work to avoid the domineering aspects to such behaviors.

 

See: Mutualism.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic_theory)

 

 

See also:

 

Base and superstructure

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_and_superstructure

 

 

You haven't spent enough time around other human beings.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_nature

 

https://www.britannica.com/topic/human-nature 

 

 

 

Thanks for the tip regarding Mutual aid factor regarding of Evolution and the other links.

Good post.

[Canuckle]

12 minutes ago, Ilunga said:

 

You haven't spent enough time around other human beings.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_nature

 

https://www.britannica.com/topic/human-nature 

 

 

 

Thanks for the tip regarding Mutual aid factor regarding of Evolution and the other links.

Good post.

 

Given you don't know me or what I do I find that charge extremely funny.

 

And I will stand by my previous post. 

 

Humans are capable of all sorts of things. But there is no deterministic "human nature" as is commonly believed and nature v nurture is a complete false dichotomy even at a genetic level.

[Ilunga]

1 hour ago, Canuckle said:

 

Given you don't know me or what I do I find that charge extremely funny.

 

And I will stand by my previous post. 

 

Humans are capable of all sorts of things. But there is no deterministic "human nature" as is commonly believed and nature v nurture is a complete false dichotomy even at a genetic level.

 

Really ?

 

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/may/19/are-we-products-of-nature-or-nuture-science-answers-age-old-question

 

[StrayDog]

I have some questions on Socialism. The theory is everyone produces and receives their share, and some is taken aside for those who don't produce (elderly, children, etc), correct? This seems like finely balanced thing that could be thrown out of whack easily. 

For instance, say a grain blight hits and wipes out half the crop. Who decides how the remaining half is distributed? Half the populace will go hungry, if not immediately then shortly after the storage runs out.

My follow-up question ties in. How do you determine who's in charge of that situation? That person or persons will never say that their own people (family, neighbors) will be the ones to go hungry. That leads to some very hungry and angry people.

Socialism seems to be predicated on the idea that every person will help by sacrificing. That's a very noble thought but not much a reality when it's you or your child going hngry. Humans are still creations of nature, and nature states you secure for yourself and your own first, and kill anything that threatens that. Humanity comes from primates, and a lot of those base instincts still exist. All it takes is to watch two troupes of chimpanzees kill each other over a fruit tree to know how people will react when things get really dire.

I'm sure I'll have some more questions when these are answered. 

Thanks!

[Canuckle]

On 10/11/2023 at 7:15 PM, Ilunga said:

 

Really ?

 

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/may/19/are-we-products-of-nature-or-nuture-science-answers-age-old-question

 

 

Yes, really. It's not one or the other. It's both.

 

 

Jesus christ the first paragraph says right there.

 

"

The age-old question of whether human traits are determined by nature or nurture has been answered, a team of researchers say. Their conclusion? It’s a draw.

 

By collating almost every twin study across the world from the past 50 years, researchers determined that the average variation for human traits and disease is 49% due to genetic factors and 51% due to environmental factors.

 

Secondly, these studies are testing for DISEASE and gene expression using twins.

 

That has little to nothing to do with the discusion of behaviors--the systems and structures that condition us and  values systems therein. It's not even a relevant article.

 

So again, yes. I will stand by my previous statements.

[Ilunga]

On 10/12/2023 at 3:43 AM, Canuckle said:

I've read both. One more than the other... (just due to the sheer size of the thing. Never again.)

 

A stateless, classless, moneyless society would obviously be preferably if equality and equity is the goal, but fun fact Marx wasn't the only one that wrote on this subject. In fact, conceptions of socialism predate Marx. Tons of stuff look into on that front. I'd personally lean on the anarcho-communist side in terms of philosophy and theory (eg. no transitional state-capitalism) but I'm with you.

 

There's never been a scientific basis for the belief in there being a "human nature." There is no true "human nature."

 

We are products of our environments, socialized, conditioned, born into bondage ala reinforced by the structures of society that exist. And if we change the conditions of the experiment, we get different results. Humans are capable of all sorts of behaviors. There is no 'genetic only human nature' forcing people to be selfish and dominating. For the most part it's scarcity driven behavior, and societies with structures that award those types of behaviors reinforce them. The notion of human nature was always putting the cart before the horse. And still is.

 

Frankly, if there was a "true" human nature it would probably be more akin to mutual aid and community-- Human civilization would not have survived as long as we have without it. We are social animals, afterall.

 

There's a book called "Mutual Aid: a factor of Evolution" by Evolutionary biologist and anthropologist Peter Kroptokin which I'd recommend. Good stuff in there.

 

 

And what would happen if we remove the systems and structures which allow for such domination to occur in the first place? It becomes a non factor.

 

For example, in that stateless, classless, moneyless society where each contributes according to their ability takes according to their need, what good is being "rich?" How would we even define rich in a society with no money? And what would be drivers be to hoard more than one needs anyway?  There would be none.

 

And even if there was there was a need to "have more," need for those kinds of difference in personal property, there are other economic ideas out there which could work to avoid the domineering aspects to such behaviors.

 

See: Mutualism.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic_theory)

 

 

See also:

 

Base and superstructure

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_and_superstructure

 

 

52 minutes ago, Canuckle said:

 

Yes, really. It's not one or the other. It's both.

 

 

Jesus christ the first paragraph says right there.

 

"

The age-old question of whether human traits are determined by nature or nurture has been answered, a team of researchers say. Their conclusion? It’s a draw.

 

By collating almost every twin study across the world from the past 50 years, researchers determined that the average variation for human traits and disease is 49% due to genetic factors and 51% due to environmental factors.

 

Secondly, these studies are testing for DISEASE and gene expression using twins.

 

That has little to nothing to do with the discusion of behaviors--the systems and structures that condition us and  values systems therein. It's not even a relevant article.

 

So again, yes. I will stand by my previous statements.

 

In your first post you state

" There is no true human nature "  

 

Then you quote my post saying that it is a draw between nature and nurture. 

 

From the article 

 

" There was a wide variation between the 17,800 traits and diseases examined by the studies "

 

The definition of traits 

" The distinguishing quality or characteristic typically belonging to a person " 

 

Anyway the nature I was referring to in regards to Communism and any economic model for that matter, is that human beings apply themselves in different manners to the jobs/ tasks they do, ranging from a little to the very few that put a 100 percent of their effort into what they do.

 

Why should the person who does f#ck all be rewarded in the same way as someone who puts in a lot more effort into what they do.

 

Edited October 13, 2023 by Ilunga

[Canuckle]

23 hours ago, StrayDog said:

I have some questions on Socialism. The theory is everyone produces and receives their share, and some is taken aside for those who don't produce (elderly, children, etc), correct?

 

That would be the general idea of a communist society, yes. "Socialist economy" and "socialism" are such murky terms that depending on the particular philosophy, this may or may not be the case.

 

But for the sake of argument let's say it's a socialist economy in a communist society.

 

23 hours ago, StrayDog said:

This seems like finely balanced thing that could be thrown out of whack easily. 

 

Not sure how that would be any different under any other economic system?

 

23 hours ago, StrayDog said:

For instance, say a grain blight hits and wipes out half the crop. Who decides how the remaining half is distributed?

 

Ok. How do we decide when that happens now? Who decides. Who decides who gets to eat and who starves. In the theoretical scenario is there only source of food for the entire planet?

 

We way overproduce and waste food already and look how many in the world starve.  I don't think the scenario is really realistic tbh.

 

 

For example capitalism doesn't have a production problem. They have a distribution problem.   Enough to go around but access is not equal.

 

There are tons of food sources. If some crops of some food stuffs is wiped out I guess nobody will be eating that particular food for awhile.

 

Same as when we saw production shortages of certain foods at the grocery store during the pandemic? Not much different. Find other solutions.

 

23 hours ago, StrayDog said:

Socialism seems to be predicated on the idea that every person will help by sacrificing.

 

Where did you hear that? 

 

And "Sacrificing" what exactly? Maybe sacrificing this pie in sky idea of one day being a billionaire? The vast vast vast majority of people are more likely to end up a poor starving person in a dingy in the ocean than a billionaire.

 

23 hours ago, StrayDog said:

That's a very noble thought but not much a reality when it's you or your child going hngry.

 

My friend CAPITALISM is a noble thought but not much a reality when its you or your child going hungry.

 

Not sure how you think it would be worse if workers/community owned their own workplaces and the surplus value of their labour wasn't usurped by some private person(s)?

 

In any economic system, socialism, capitalism, feudalism, etc. the ISMS simply determine who get paid.

 

And these theoretical scenarios would affect ANY economic system just the same anyway.

 

Obviously we don't live in this theoretical classless, moneyless, society so its impossible to know what solutions there would be in the case of an emergency, what kind of safe guards or hell what kind of technology would exist or even what food stuffs look like by then.

 

And I reckon if humans couldn't solve simple issues like that, they wouldn't get to be a stateless, classless, moneyless society in the first place.

 

But we know humans very much can. Look what they've done already. Innovation and curiosity doesn't just stop because some profit motive disappears. Did the first person who built the wheel only do it for profit? Nay. Even Steve Wozniak didn't build his first computer for the money. Did it to see if he could do it.  Doesnt even strike me as a legitimate concern tbh.

 

We have major supply chains all over the world that can already feed the world pretty easily. Not sure why those would suddenly disappear because the workers are making the money instead of the monopoly guy at the top.

 

23 hours ago, StrayDog said:

Humans are still creations of nature, and nature states you secure for yourself and your own first, and kill anything that threatens that. Humanity comes from primates, and a lot of those base instincts still exist. All it takes is to watch two troupes of chimpanzees kill each other over a fruit tree to know how people will react when things get really dire.

 

First of all "nature states" absolutely nothing-- Especially living in a society that doesn't operate in a constant  "state of nature."  Sure, certain structures help to consistently shove people into that place, but it's not some inevitably for humans. In fact that's exactly the kind of thing socialism and/or communist society aims to avoid and solve. That's kinda the point.

 

Secondly, your comment argues we are still unevolved apes with no concept for higher rationalism?  I might agree with that to a certain extent given the kind of thick skulled knuckle draggers I've met in my life (and yes most are hard-core right wingers btw lol) but I will repeat what I said above about solving simple issues.

 

The basic idea is that in a world where each gives according to their abilities and takes according to their needs,  people wouldn't need to fight over manufactured scarce resources. And when I say manufactured i mean by means of consciously limiting access. In capitalisms case, for profit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_scarcity

 

 And in this scenario, socialist economy within a communist scope already assumes a post scarcity.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-scarcity

 

And chimps fighting over an apple arguments need not apply.

[Canuckle]

46 minutes ago, Ilunga said:

 

 

In your first post you state

" There is no true human nature "  

 

Then you quote my post saying that it is a draw between nature and nurture. 

 

From the article 

 

" There was a wide variation between the 17,800 traits and diseases examined by the studies "

 

The definition of traits 

" The distinguishing quality or characteristic typically belonging to a person " 

 

Anyway the nature I was referring to in regards to Communism and any economic model for that matter, is that human beings apply themselves in different manners to the jobs/ tasks they do, ranging from a little to the very few that put a 100 percent of their effort into what they do.

 

Why should the person who does f#ck all be rewarded in the same way as someone who puts in a lot more effort into what they do.

 

It's a draw on genetics and disease, yes. Behavior is not same thing as gene expression or disease development. The article doesn't even discuss nature and nurture in terms behavior. Ergo, not relevant.

 

As for your followup, you're asking a very very protestant ethic based and biased question there. And there's way too much to unpack to answer it at this point... for you to understand it at least. Not saying that to be disparaging but just that there's a lot of work, a lot of reading and conceptualizing to do before you'll really understand the answer I'll give.

 

The short answer is: It wouldn't be a concern. And even if it was, it still wouldn't be a concern. The entire idea of "earning a living" would already be long long gone. In fact that reminds me of an awesome Buckminster Fuller quote:

 

"We should do away with the absolutely specious notion that everybody has to earn a living. It is a fact today that one in ten thousand of us can make a technological breakthrough capable of supporting all the rest. The youth of today are absolutely right in recognizing this nonsense of earning a living. We keep inventing jobs because of this false idea that everybody has to be employed at some kind of drudgery because, according to Malthusian Darwinian theory he must justify his right to exist. So we have inspectors of inspectors and people making instruments for inspectors to inspect inspectors. The true business of people should be to go back to school and think about whatever it was they were thinking about before somebody came along and told them they had to earn a living."

Edited October 13, 2023 by Canuckle

[Canuckle]

@Bob Long

 

Did you have any more questions about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

 

?

 

You went from thinking I was a tankie and hating my guts to dropping the conversation entirely. Lol.

 

[Bob Long]

6 minutes ago, Canuckle said:

@Bob Long

 

Did you have any more questions about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

 

?

 

You went from thinking I was a tankie and hating my guts to dropping the conversation entirely. Lol.

 

? I haven't had any ill feeling about our conversation at all. Just haven't had time to check out the links you posted.

Edited October 13, 2023 by Bob Long

[Ilunga]

7 minutes ago, Canuckle said:

It's a draw on genetics and disease, yes. Behavior is not same thing as gene expression or disease development. The article doesn't even discuss nature and nurture in terms behavior. Ergo, not relevant.

 

As for your followup, you're asking a very very protestant ethic based and biased question there. And there's way too much to unpack to answer it at this point... for you to understand it at least. Not saying that to be disparaging but just that there's a lot of work, a lot of reading and conceptualizing to do before you'll really understand the answer I'll give.

 

The short answer is: It wouldn't be a concern. And even if it was, it still wouldn't be a concern. The entire idea of "earning a living" would already be long long gone. In fact that reminds me of an awesome Buckminster Fuller quote:

 

"We should do away with the absolutely specious notion that everybody has to earn a living. It is a fact today that one in ten thousand of us can make a technological breakthrough capable of supporting all the rest. The youth of today are absolutely right in recognizing this nonsense of earning a living. We keep inventing jobs because of this false idea that everybody has to be employed at some kind of drudgery because, according to Malthusian Darwinian theory he must justify his right to exist. So we have inspectors of inspectors and people making instruments for inspectors to inspect inspectors. The true business of people should be to go back to school and think about whatever it was they were thinking about before somebody came along and told them they had to earn a living."

 

You have decided what's relevant and what is not, I don't agree with your conclusion on this.

 

However I agree with a lot of points in many of your posts.

As for what I have read/ researched, I studied economics at school, have been around for nearly 60 years, am a voracious reader and listen to many lectures on this subject on radio national here in Aus 

Some of best use of our taxes IMO, the ABC that is.

 

There has been a lot of talk about a UBI in the last few years, a Universal Basic Income. 

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-12-09/basic-income-push-in-australia-after-covid-welfare/100681912

 

 

I can honestly see that eventually happening sometime in the future.

 

When, who knows.

[Canuckle]

2 hours ago, Ilunga said:

 

You have decided what's relevant and what is not, I don't agree with your conclusion on this.

 

However I agree with a lot of points in many of your posts.

As for what I have read/ researched, I studied economics at school, have been around for nearly 60 years, am a voracious reader and listen to many lectures on this subject on radio national here in Aus 

Some of best use of our taxes IMO, the ABC that is.

 

There has been a lot of talk about a UBI in the last few years, a Universal Basic Income. 

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-12-09/basic-income-push-in-australia-after-covid-welfare/100681912

 

 

I can honestly see that eventually happening sometime in the future.

 

When, who knows.

 

1) A study on twins testing for disease and genetic expression is not the same as a study on behavior.  While molecular biology can be interrelated to behavioral sciences, that simply isn't what this study is testing for nor is it what the study is saying. Why would it. That wasn't the focus of the study! You can't just turn and say it was when it wasn't. I can read it too, dude.  lol.

 

2) UBI is a good band-aid solution.  Better than nothing no doubt but it still doesn't address the underlying power structures and destructive nature of private property based economies. Truth be told, it actually reinforces them!

A UBI will provide people the basic necessities to survive but barely above subsistence levels. Money to pay the rent, purchase basic good, sure but keeps the game chugging along as usual. And the only reason a UBI is needed is needed is because of the exploitative nature of capitalism to begin with. Putting the onus the state to provide is basically subsidizing businesses that don't pay enough to survive on. Ie. a living wage.

 

And we see this kind of strategy with companies like Walmart. They don't pay enough and workers are forced to get food stamps from the government.

 

 

For Walmart employees, it's basically a scrip system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrip

 

And ever heard the song "Sixteen tons"?   Not much different, only the state is directly complicit in the dudgery.  "I owe my soul to the company store."

 

 

Obviously this is an extreme example but it certainly gets the point across: Why a UBI is neccesary to begin with, the kind of dependence on the system it creates while protecting the system which benefits those that would employ it.

 

Having said that there was a UBI study in Dauphin, Manitoba, Canada in the 1970s called "Mincome" and was a great success..... and also why the data from the study was never reviewed and shelved by... you guessed it... a conservative government.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income_in_Canada

 

The Province of Ontario was going to conduct a similar study in 2017 but the Provincial government scrapped it after 3 months.  And by yes, you guessed it, another Conservative government. Lol

 

Long story short, i am 100% for a UBI. But I still realize that it's like putting a band-aid on gangrene. Merely treating the symptoms but not the underlying disease.

 

Food for thought.

Edited October 13, 2023 by Canuckle

[StrayDog]

8 hours ago, Canuckle said:

 

That would be the general idea of a communist society, yes. "Socialist economy" and "socialism" are such murky terms that depending on the particular philosophy, this may or may not be the case.

 

But for the sake of argument let's say it's a socialist economy in a communist society.

 

 

Not sure how that would be any different under any other economic system?

 

 

Ok. How do we decide when that happens now? Who decides. Who decides who gets to eat and who starves. In the theoretical scenario is there only source of food for the entire planet?

 

We way overproduce and waste food already and look how many in the world starve.  I don't think the scenario is really realistic tbh.

 

 

For example capitalism doesn't have a production problem. They have a distribution problem.   Enough to go around but access is not equal.

 

There are tons of food sources. If some crops of some food stuffs is wiped out I guess nobody will be eating that particular food for awhile.

 

Same as when we saw production shortages of certain foods at the grocery store during the pandemic? Not much different. Find other solutions.

 

 

Where did you hear that? 

 

And "Sacrificing" what exactly? Maybe sacrificing this pie in sky idea of one day being a billionaire? The vast vast vast majority of people are more likely to end up a poor starving person in a dingy in the ocean than a billionaire.

 

 

My friend CAPITALISM is a noble thought but not much a reality when its you or your child going hungry.

 

Not sure how you think it would be worse if workers/community owned their own workplaces and the surplus value of their labour wasn't usurped by some private person(s)?

 

In any economic system, socialism, capitalism, feudalism, etc. the ISMS simply determine who get paid.

 

And these theoretical scenarios would affect ANY economic system just the same anyway.

 

Obviously we don't live in this theoretical classless, moneyless, society so its impossible to know what solutions there would be in the case of an emergency, what kind of safe guards or hell what kind of technology would exist or even what food stuffs look like by then.

 

And I reckon if humans couldn't solve simple issues like that, they wouldn't get to be a stateless, classless, moneyless society in the first place.

 

But we know humans very much can. Look what they've done already. Innovation and curiosity doesn't just stop because some profit motive disappears. Did the first person who built the wheel only do it for profit? Nay. Even Steve Wozniak didn't build his first computer for the money. Did it to see if he could do it.  Doesnt even strike me as a legitimate concern tbh.

 

We have major supply chains all over the world that can already feed the world pretty easily. Not sure why those would suddenly disappear because the workers are making the money instead of the monopoly guy at the top.

 

 

First of all "nature states" absolutely nothing-- Especially living in a society that doesn't operate in a constant  "state of nature."  Sure, certain structures help to consistently shove people into that place, but it's not some inevitably for humans. In fact that's exactly the kind of thing socialism and/or communist society aims to avoid and solve. That's kinda the point.

 

Secondly, your comment argues we are still unevolved apes with no concept for higher rationalism?  I might agree with that to a certain extent given the kind of thick skulled knuckle draggers I've met in my life (and yes most are hard-core right wingers btw lol) but I will repeat what I said above about solving simple issues.

 

The basic idea is that in a world where each gives according to their abilities and takes according to their needs,  people wouldn't need to fight over manufactured scarce resources. And when I say manufactured i mean by means of consciously limiting access. In capitalisms case, for profit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_scarcity

 

 And in this scenario, socialist economy within a communist scope already assumes a post scarcity.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-scarcity

 

And chimps fighting over an apple arguments need not apply.

I'd like to point out you didn't actually answer my questions; you pivoted into anti-capitalist statements. I asked you how a socialist society would deal with such things and all you did was tell me how a capitalist society deals with it. I am already aware of how capitalism deals with those things. 

The "sacrifice" thing came from one of the links you earlier provided. No I don't remember which one; it was a lot of reading. It was about how some would need to sacrifice for the greater good. I wanted to know who makes the decision of who sacrifices. Again no answer, just anti-capitalism rhetoric.

I never said either system was superior. I wanted your view - in your own words - on why Socialism was the better option in the situation I presented. If you look back not a single thing I said promoted capitalism. I asked for a compare and contrast, not a dissertation on the evils of capitalism.

Nature states more than you think, my friend. Every living thing (and that includes the highly rational apes that we are) naturally wants to survive and will do what is necessary to continue. I used the chimps and a single fruit tree to show what happens when different groups require the same scarce resource (food in this instance, which is why my original question dealt with a worldwide food blight that wipes out 50% of the world's food supply). I did not ask about manufactured goods, I asked about things that matter to every person's survival.

People have asked you multiple times to explain such a thing in your own words. The only answers they orginally got were to be told to "educate themselves" and "a new thread would need to be provided". Well, the thread is here and I was hoping you would educate me. It's now clear to me you don't want to argue the merits of socialism, you just want to argue that capitalism is bad.

I didn't even get into deeper questions about how you feel anarchy would better serve humanity, but I'm guessing now if I did you'd just tell me again how bad capitalism is. If you wish to discuss, then discuss; but if everything you say is "Capitalism sucks! Anarchy now!" but can't argue the merits of that statement then I'm no longer interested in the discussion.

Thanks!
 

 

[Ryan Strome]

3 hours ago, StrayDog said:

I'd like to point out you didn't actually answer my questions; you pivoted into anti-capitalist statements. I asked you how a socialist society would deal with such things and all you did was tell me how a capitalist society deals with it. I am already aware of how capitalism deals with those things. 

The "sacrifice" thing came from one of the links you earlier provided. No I don't remember which one; it was a lot of reading. It was about how some would need to sacrifice for the greater good. I wanted to know who makes the decision of who sacrifices. Again no answer, just anti-capitalism rhetoric.

I never said either system was superior. I wanted your view - in your own words - on why Socialism was the better option in the situation I presented. If you look back not a single thing I said promoted capitalism. I asked for a compare and contrast, not a dissertation on the evils of capitalism.

Nature states more than you think, my friend. Every living thing (and that includes the highly rational apes that we are) naturally wants to survive and will do what is necessary to continue. I used the chimps and a single fruit tree to show what happens when different groups require the same scarce resource (food in this instance, which is why my original question dealt with a worldwide food blight that wipes out 50% of the world's food supply). I did not ask about manufactured goods, I asked about things that matter to every person's survival.

People have asked you multiple times to explain such a thing in your own words. The only answers they orginally got were to be told to "educate themselves" and "a new thread would need to be provided". Well, the thread is here and I was hoping you would educate me. It's now clear to me you don't want to argue the merits of socialism, you just want to argue that capitalism is bad.

I didn't even get into deeper questions about how you feel anarchy would better serve humanity, but I'm guessing now if I did you'd just tell me again how bad capitalism is. If you wish to discuss, then discuss; but if everything you say is "Capitalism sucks! Anarchy now!" but can't argue the merits of that statement then I'm no longer interested in the discussion.

Thanks!
 

 

This is all he is doing and then getting mad because we don't see it his way but he hasn't actually sold anybody on anything

[Bob Long]

14 hours ago, Canuckle said:

@Bob Long

 

Did you have any more questions about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

 

?

 

You went from thinking I was a tankie and hating my guts to dropping the conversation entirely. Lol.

 

 

okie dokie, so had a chance to have a look. 

 

So again, we're really in the realm of theory here. One area I'd pick up on is the idea that capitalism must by design or influence uphold greed. I would strongly disagree with this.

 

Take the co-op model for a business. One of my favourite forms of business, we need many more of them. You can form a co-op, owned and run by workers who set the policies and direction of the company, and produce goods that have a net positive effect on the world. 

 

E.g., not for profit developer housing co-op's are a great example. So was mountain equipment co-op before that moron ran it into the ground.

 

There isn't an inherent evilness to capitalism. So right there you've lost me on the idea that libertarian socialism would be a good alternative. 

 

[Canuckle]

5 hours ago, StrayDog said:

I'd like to point out you didn't actually answer my questions

 Sure I did. Most of what you're saying in this hypothetical unrealistic scenario doesn't even make sense to discuss.

 

5 hours ago, StrayDog said:

The "sacrifice" thing came from one of the links you earlier provided. No I don't remember which one; it was a lot of reading. It was about how some would need to sacrifice for the greater good.

You better find that quote with the context then. I already explained all that's really being "sacrificed" would be an individuals abilitily to be a dominator in the economic realm and all that comes with it.

 

5 hours ago, StrayDog said:

I wanted your view - in your own words - on why Socialism was the better option in the situation I presented.

 

Why socialism is better in this unrealistic scenario you've painted? What for. We can certainly discuss possibilities and reason from there (as I already did in my previous comment which apparently wasn't good enough) but we aren't prognosticators here. Asking me what some future society would or wouldn't do.

 

You can reason that stuff out yourself. Use your imagination. Put yourself in those shoes in that place at that time and think about it.

 

A world devoid of class division, absent of a state apparatus with no money existing in a post scarcity society.

 

And what does that really mean. You're gonna have to really conceptualize what those things mean if you want to grasp the answer.  And no amount of explain these possibility and potentialities will make any sense to you until you do.

 

6 hours ago, StrayDog said:

The only answers they orginally got were to be told to "educate themselves" and "a new thread would need to be provided". Well, the thread is here and I was hoping you would educate me. It's now clear to me you don't want to argue the merits of socialism, you just want to argue that capitalism is bad.

I didn't even get into deeper questions about how you feel anarchy would better serve humanity

 

I suppose my first question to you is do you know what any of those terms actually mean?

 

I've provided tons of links for you to learn on your own. Did you click on ANY of them and read in depth?

 

Do that and maybe you'll come up with that answer by yourself. I didn't have someone hold my hand to learn this stuff.  C'mon now. You're capable.

 

For example if you can't understand why a society devoid of systems of heirachy and exploitation wouldn't be better than ones with it, I don't know what to tell you.

 

Is a society without slavery better than ones with slavery?  That's basically what you just asked me.

 

Like... I'm more than happy to explain this stuff  if I feel someone is actually asking in good faith and doing the work to understand it. But so far I am unconvinced.

 

And yes, speaking about the evils of capitalism is very much relevant to the topic. Those oppressive structures and systems are exactly what leftist political philosophy like anarchism, socialism, communism aim to avoid. 

[Satchmo]

2 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

One area I'd pick up on is the idea that capitalism must by design or influence uphold greed.

 

It might have been me that said that, or at least something similar.

 

He may have said it too, but I've kinda stopped paying close attention.

[Canuckle]

4 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

, we're really in the realm of theory here

 

 It's more than theory. 'Democracy at work' is very much a thing already as you know. Co-ops are socialist enterprises (competing in the capitalist market because what choice to they have right now.)

 

And there are regions and communities that live in the ways as prescribed in the links I've been posting, past and present: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities

 

Not theory, but Praxis.

 

9 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

the idea that capitalism must by design or influence uphold greed. I would strongly

That's just the way the system works--it's the nature of capitalism. Wealth, property and power accumulation is the entire model.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_capitalism

 

What exactly is it you disagree with?

 

14 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

There isn't an inherent evilness to capitalism

 

We don't need to discuss it in moraliatic terms. You can hold an amoral view and still come to same conclusions. Afterall any economic system is simply tool to organize society in a certain way.

 

And we really need only look at the end results here-- what really happens when a system runs it's course.

 

When you look under the hood, capitalism isn't actually all that different compared to slave society, feudalism, or market mercantilism which came before it. Right, wrong, whatever.  But if liberty, equality, and fraternity is your goal, capitalism isn't going to get you there-- it simply wasn’t designed for it.

[Bob Long]

2 minutes ago, Canuckle said:

 

 It's more than theory. 'Democracy at work' is very much a thing already as you know. Co-ops are socialist enterprises (competing in the capitalist market because what choice to they have right now.)

 

And there are regions and communities that live in the ways as prescribed in the links I've been posting, past and present: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities

 

Not theory, but Praxis.

 

OK so some small communities in isolation. Just one question - where do they buy their goods they need to survive that they can't produce?

 

2 minutes ago, Canuckle said:

That's just the way the system works--it's the nature of capitalism. Wealth, property and power accumulation is the entire model.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_capitalism

 

What exactly is it you disagree with?

 

the inherent greed part. 

 

2 minutes ago, Canuckle said:

 

We don't need to discuss it in moraliatic terms. You can hold an amoral view and still come to same conclusions. Afterall any economic system is simply tool to organize society in a certain way.

 

And we really need only look at the end results here-- what really happens when a system runs it's course.

 

When you look under the hood, capitalism isn't actually all that different compared to slave society, feudalism, or market mercantilism which came before it. Right, wrong, whatever.  But if liberty, equality, and fraternity is your goal, capitalism isn't going to get you there-- it simply wasn’t designed for it.

 

again, disagree here. You can gain those things quite well in a co-op model within a capitalist system. I'd also ague that innovation is at its best in a market economy.

 

 

[Canuckle]

27 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

OK so some small communities in isolation. Just one question - where do they buy their goods they need to survive that they can't produce?

 

the inherent greed part. 

 

again, disagree here. You can gain those things quite well in a co-op model within a capitalist system. I'd also ague that innovation is at its best in a market economy.

Well you're in luck. You can have a market in a socialist economy, too. I think i mentioned that before? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism

 

In fact that's kind of the idea for wide scale development of co-operatives and federations in general. In the end, the isms of capitalism and socialism merely outline who's getting paid.

 

Innovation happens in all sorts of economies, market or non market.

 

The idea that it "happens best" isn't really founded on anything concrete. But because that's what we know and live in, it's hard to find comparables. Isn't evidence in and of itself though.

 

I mentioned this in a comment earlier but did the first guy to invent the wheel only do it to trade in a market or to make a buck? Nah. Humans are always innovative and curious, make new tools to enhance our lives. Steve Wozniak didn't build his first computer to make a buck. He did it to see if he could do it.

 

And in that sense it doesn't matter what economic system, market or non market, that we may exist under in terms of incentive to innovate and create.

 

Remember that meme i posted with the Neanderthal? We're there.

 

 

4 minutes ago, Canuckle said:

OK so some small communities in isolation. Just one question - where do they buy their goods they need to survive that they can't produce?

Sorry. The thread is getting messy here. I forgot to answer this part.

 

Where do they buy? Same place we do i imagine.  Because what choice do we have at this point, right?  If there was another option, say,  a co-operative in socialist market place they'd get them from there.

Edited October 13, 2023 by Canuckle
added stuff